Aid but not refuge

Social networks and global media continually ask “why don’t the Gulf states do anything for the refugees?” The question sheds a harsh light on the refusal of the oil monarchies to receive Syrians — or Yemenis, who get far less attention — who have fled their own country. None of the six members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (1) have signed the 1951 Geneva Convention on refugees or have legislation to allow foreign nationals fleeing conflict to settle on their territories. So there is no question that any of them will allow refugee camps to be set up.

In 1948 Saudi Arabia closed its borders to Palestinians displaced by the creation of Israel — on the grounds that it did not have the means to shelter them. Today these six countries — among the richest in the world — are quick to stress that they are funding humanitarian care for Syrian refugees, especially in Lebanon and Jordan. Kuwait is due to pay out $304m to UN agencies in 2015 and Saudi Arabia has released $20m for camps in Jordan. This stands in contrast to the US — the largest donor — which has promised $1.1bn for the region as a whole.

Sarah Leah Whitson, executive director of Human Rights Watch’s Middle East and North Africa division, says: “The Gulf states would rather give financial support than open their borders.” But in fact, it’s more complicated. Though Saudi Arabia has not issued any work permits to Syrians since 2011, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) have admitted 150,000 since the conflict started. “It’s on a case-by-case basis,” explains a North African expatriate in Abu Dhabi. “Very often, they’re people who already have family in the UAE and can find work here. The authorities don’t want to open the floodgates.” And all those lucky enough to be admitted have to obey the same rule — they are forbidden to engage in any political activity relating to their home country.